![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem. Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?", this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be illegal for a Private Pilot to do. That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation almost every time they fly. Case in point - you said in a previous post: " I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday morning." So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113. In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described, do not include. Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to transport them here or there, with no money involved. FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113. Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com... SNIP That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation almost every time they fly. Case in point - you said in a previous post: " I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday morning." So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113. In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described, do not include. I may be confusing this type of situation with a different scenario, but, IIRC, you also have to be able to prove a "commonality" for making the flight. Just being amenable to giving a buddy a lift somewhere because *he* wants to go there is not enough if YOU don't really have a reason to go there beyond helping your buddy. You have to have a reason to go too. Jay Beckman PP-ASEL Chandler, AZ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bart" wrote in
oups.com: Wade Hasbrouck wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem. Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?", this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be illegal for a Private Pilot to do. That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation almost every time they fly. Case in point - you said in a previous post: " I had a coworker who wanted to go have lunch at PWT (Bremerton National) on a Saturday morning." So by your own interpretation, *you* are in violation of FAR 61.113. In order for a violation to occur, there has to be compensation (which may or may not be monetary) which the above situations, as described, do not include. Not at all. You could have commitments to friends or relatives to transport them here or there, with no money involved. FAA could still consider this as flying for compensation, which is prohibited under Part 91 and FAR 61.113. FAA has said that compensation doesn't have to be monetary in nature to violate FAR 61.113. Again - in his scenario, no compensation is described, so it is perfectly legal. The word "commitment" does not inherently imply compensation. A commitment is merely an obligation to an agreement. The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time (whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation. If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight, then you are in violation. There are some exceptions for private pilots as specified either in the FARs or by FAA policy specified in the Air Transportation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order 8400.10. The ones I'm aware of are FAR 91.321 regarding the carriage of candidates in elections or the policy stated in 8400.10 section 1345 for "Life Flights" (like Angel Flight) where a private pilot is allowed to take a tax deduction and inspectors are specifically instructed not to treat this tax deductibility of costs as constituting "compensation for hire". -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marty Shapiro wrote:
"Bart" wrote: The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time (whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation. If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight, then you are in violation. As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal. Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the pro rata. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bart" wrote in
ups.com: Marty Shapiro wrote: "Bart" wrote: The FAA has ruled in the past that the ability to log the flight time (whether or not you actually do so) is in and of itself compensation. If your friend invites you to attend the wedding, then there is no problem, as you have a common purpose for the trip where the air transportation is incidental. But if you are only flying to transport your friend to the wedding and you have no other purpose in going on the flight, then you are in violation. As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal. Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the pro rata. Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marty Shapiro writes:
Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs. That rules out a great deal of the motivation for GA, and thus makes no sense. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marty Shapiro wrote:
Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. If it's your own airplane and you pay 100% of fuel and other direct costs, logging the time can't possibly be compensation. You can fly the plane any time you want. Having a friend in the right seat doesn't make any difference. If I want to build time for a rating, I can fly solo to places I rather not go to, like the food at that airport restaurant sucks. Or I can do a favor for a friend and take him there for free upon request. The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my plane compensatory? Fred F. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.
Where? I'd like to see the case. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose wrote:
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value. Where? I'd like to see the case. It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem, it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the pilot to pay for the motel but log the time. However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually, the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I think is absurd. Fred F. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "TxSrv" wrote in message . .. The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my plane compensatory? Fred F. The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality," which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135. Karl "Curaor" N185KG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |